AnotherDuck

I know what you write here, and it's terrible. No. That's just you spouting nonsense, so I'm ending it here.

It's not a strawman if that's your actual argument. You conveniently ignored that I said you have to that it into account, not use it like a blanket justification like you did. The skill difference between "angle" and "deal with radar" is not comparable, so your argument fails like usual. Either you failed to read, or you created yet another strawman. And when you put my actual logic into what you said about AP rather than your strawman version, well, that's what WG did with the T1 ships. They considered the skill level of players and their ability to handle two types of ammunition, and decided that was too much for them. But after that introduction tier, it's fine. Not when you don't have an argument and instead try to come with an anecdote and pretend it's an argument. This isn't the thread for anecdotes, and you're a terrible writer, so it's just not interesting nor relevant. Now, if you don't have better arguments and insist on continuing with this nonesense, we can just end this here.

This is a bad argument. It's exactly like, for instance, people who advocate for skill-based MM argue for. They put themselves at the break-limit for what skill level a player has to be to be allowed to play with them. That is, they have to be at their skill level or higher. It's a self-centred argument that needs to go away. I mean, if I was as self-centred as that, I wouldn't want radar to change, since it negatively affects a bunch of DD players that aren't me, which leaves me with an easier way to have more impact on games. The problem is people using bad play to justify radar. You want to claim that because 50% of players aren't smart, intelligent, and dangerous opponents, a stupid gameplay crutch mechanic is fine? You can justify any kind of OP ships with that. "Hey, 50% of players are useless, so ships like Musashi and Belfast are fine." Reality is that when you judge the strength of something, you have to take into account the players who're good enough to abuse it. If you don't, you give them a free tool to club at any tier. Arguing that many players are bad is fundamentally misunderstanding how you balance a game. TL;DR. I've never seen an example you posted matter for the discussion.

Moskva. I will always remember my very first game in Fuso. Completely stock, retraining the captain, and T8. Second salvo devastated a cruiser, then I went brawling with another cruiser that had a lot of backup while I had none. Cruiser got deleted, and I did a fair bit of damage to some other ships before going down. Fast game, but good impact. Fuso's a respectable brawler, and for that you don't need the range. Such russian bias.

Musashi would fare well if she were classified as a T10 ship. Whining about ending up against one of the most OP ships isn't helping your case of whining about poor performance of other ships. If you can't fully equip the ship because you're too poor (in-game, that is) then you've only got yourself to blame. I'm not going to say I've never spent any money on the game, but I've never spent any money that has affected such things, and I've never had a problem with that. If you find it so bothersome to play stock ships, do something about it and get the resources to avoid that, rather than come to the forums and whine about it. It's not hard; it just requires some planning and effort. But maybe that's too much.

So, after I finally got some time to do the last stage in the KanColle event (and sadly only time to do it on easy, which maybe wouldn't have been the case if I knew the event would get extended to this weekend), I completed it not too long ago. I found the second map one of the most annoying maps I've played in my entire time in KC. Consistently over some 50 runs I got one ship nuked to red so I couldn't continue. Just switched down the difficulty and got on with it. A funny thing happened at the Last Dance on the final map, though. The one to sink the boss the last time was none other than Nisshin. For those not informed, that's the shipgirl you get as a reward for completing the final map. On the boss node when you transfer to night battle, you get a friend fleet of random shipgirls helping you out. They can normally not kill a boss, since they will only do scratch damage instead of a kill, but that only applies to the last enemy alive. This time, the last enemy alive wasn't the boss as usual, but Dyson. Therefore, Nisshin who appeared in the friend fleet could actually kill the boss. Who by the way is the Abyssal Nisshin. Currently just farming to see if I can get lucky with the AL escapee. And on that note, Isokaze plain rocks with both insane firepower and great AA, and Poi does not care that Poi does not have a damage bonus (well, other than the regular DD bonus on the map); Poi wrecks everything always. During farming I've gotten an extra Gotland. I'm kinda tempted to keep her, even if I have as a rule to never keep duplicates. It's just so useful to have a light aviation cruiser...

Fair enough. You were just saying the same things as a lot of people who claim radar is perfectly fine and it's just DD players who're whining.

It seems like some people use that as an excuse to not address the reasonable concerns a lot of people have. There are always *edited. Don't try to paint them as the real argument to refute.

Those losing streaks sometimes happens to focus on specific ships. I've had those on Nagato, Chapayev, and most recently Akizuki. Despite other stats being well above average (and mostly top or high placements on the scoreboard), the winrate is abyssmal. Winrate isn't necessarily a sign that you're playing the ship wrong, and it's only really accurate if you have something like a thousand matches. Even a hundred matches, which seems like it would be a good sample size, can easily be skewed by a single losing (or winning) streak. It's likely to show some kind of tendency, but it's still not certain, especially if that ship sticks out from all your other ships. Don't focus on your winrate. Focus on playing well. Do what you should do. If you focus too much on trying to force a win, you're more likely to take risks you shouldn't. That usually means more losses instead. Take it easy. Relax. Enjoy the game. It's supposed to be fun. So make it fun.

It's not usually that bad, honestly. And for an online PvP game, it surprisingly friendly and non-toxic. Sure, there's some of it, but most isn't. What's there is easily ignorable. Which is the best way of dealing with it: Interact with the people who seem reasonable, and ignore the raging idiots. Unless you want to troll them. That's sometimes fun.

If. And even if they are, it takes time to kill or drive away a radar cruiser. Time you lose being effective. Radar doesn't light up torpedoes, so I'm not sure what you're talking about here. So if you've got enough range, you can torp the radar cruisers yourself. If not, you have to go a good bit into radar range to do so, which means you now have to make a trade. This doesn't change depending on torpedoes. So because a ship is retreating it can't fire its guns, despite easily being in range? The moment they know you're there they're going to act differently than if they don't know you're there. It's far easier to hit someone who doesn't know you're there. It's very easy to test as well. Launch torpedoes while you've not been detected for a while, and launch torpedoes after which you shoot your guns. Those two scenarios will have different hit rates. Your own winrate doesn't matter unless you compare to your own winrate with the other torps.

So what are you going to do if you have to get to within 6-7 km of a radar cruiser or two to get close enough to hit something? If you bait the radar you give out your position, so you lack the surprise. Or if it's a retreating ship? And what are your opportunities if there are enemy DDs between you and larger enemy ships? It's simply a matter of whether you want a few sparse opportunities to affect the game, or numerous more.

There are essentially two basic ways of using the Shimakaze torpedoes, and a few more advanced ways. Most people only use the first two. Fire all torpedoes in an even spread. This is useful for flushing smoke and when you're not certain where exactly to aim. Edit: Forgot to mention that it's also a good way to aim at multiple ships in a tight formation. Fire all torpedoes in the same narrow spread. This is useful for close range dev strikes and for bow-in ships if you can't get a better angle. Fire one launcher, wait ~30 s, fire another, and so on. This is useful for maximising flooding damage and mind trickery. This is where you need to anticipate your opponents movements once they spot your torps. You also need to be better at aiming and predicting your torps. If someone is chasing you, this is also to your advantage since the opponent can never be sure you don't have torps on the way. Fire one launcher, wait ~30 s, fire the remaining two. It's like a target will turn bow-in or away if they spot one set. The other two sets can then be fired in a narrow spread to better ensure a hit even accounting for BB-shaped holes in the spread. Fire your launchers at different targets. With five torps that do a ton of damage, you can afford to spread them around. This also requires better aim and prediction as well as map awareness, but it lowers the damage at a single target. However, you're also engaging more ships at the same time, which can be of advantage to your allies (especially fire starters). Fire wide spread. Only useful at very close range when you don't have time to aim or the launcher traverse is becoming an issue. It increases your torpedo angles if you've got it hard to manoeuvre and you just need those few degrees extra for one more hit. If you use it at longer ranges you're spraying and praying, nothing more. You can of course use the same strategies with TRB ships, and to a lesser extent dual-launcher ships. However, TRB naturally encourages you to use both launchers at the same time, since if you wait between launches you don't get full advantage of the TRB. This is a case where the 30 s TRB encouraged more tactical and frequently more advantageous play. Only time I've used those torps was back with the T9 Kagero and the old TRB that was 30 s. The 12 km torps didn't exist back then. But it's kind of funny how many hits I still got at 15 km (this is with TA for 16 km range). And that would make everything more of the same. Because you get far more opportunities to use them than with 8 km or 6.4 km. You're also far less vulnerable to radar and overextending, which improves your surviviability greatly. Besides, it's not like the 12 km torpedoes stop working if you use them at 6 km range. On the other hand, the 8 km torps stop working at retreating enemies and those farther away than 8 km accounting for movement.

Can you actually get chat banned if you don't say anything? I thought that was a check that was actually done. Also, you don't get chat banned for one thing alone. I'm not sure what the number is, but it's a bunch before it happens. And most of the time I hear people complain about getting chat banned, it's pretty clear there's a reason for it. Compliments give people more compliments to give out. It's like a perpetual motion machine!

Special skill: Gnomish Surprise: 5% extra damage when hitting the stern of an enemy ship.

Well, at least they're not on the other side of the C cap, all ganging up on that Bismarck. And with those enemies, I can't really blame the Bismarck for being there either... Create a ticket and send in the replay to support? It's one of those things players can be banned for.

I use my compliments when I remember I have them. Usually for people who're friendly in chat or those who do those thankless tasks that win games but put them on the bottom half of the experience list. This is the main reason I use reports as well. If someone insults someone else, I think the game is better if they're muted. Which they eventually get if they continue like that. Sometimes if I have reports left I report campers. Not semi-campers who're at least holding a semi-strategic position somewhere, but those who go east on North and stay there the entire match despite nothing ever happening there, and full-health border lickers. If someone is intentionally suiciding or otherwise deliberately working against the team I'm sending in a ticket to support about it.

Spawns don't matter if they don't want to split up. They'll just meet up anyway if they're separated at spawn. I've seen that happen, because sometimes they do spawn on different sides. I've also seen games where all DDs went to one cap and killed all enemy DDs there, after which they continued to dominate other caps. With or without divisions. It's entirely a player issue. Changing mechanics won't magically make players better. Well, these mechanics.

Yeah, Orion is OP as hell. And it used to be even more OP before they nerfed the aim. You delete both cruisers and destroyers with the incredible HE, and if you see a battleship showing broadside, you can switch to AP for a load of extra damage. Of course, just spamming HE on battleships still works. Added to that, you're pretty tanky, unlike later ships in that line that bleed HP all the time.

I play a lot with Shimakaze and Yamato, because I find it fun and I've been grinding both their unique upgrades (although I don't use Yamato's anymore, as I noticed my average damage lowering). It's probably got more to do with the ships than the tiers, though. Don't play Gearing and Moskva all that much. Other than those I'm up to T8-T9 in the lines I'm currently grinding (Akizuki, Hipper, Neptune, Ibuki), so a lot of that as well. They're all reasonably fun (although Akizuki has that "can't win" curse for me like Chapayev, regardless of carry). The only other ship I'm playing regularly of the ones I'm grinding is KGV, which is absolute garbage. However, T7 is very enjoyable, especially in actually fun ships like Shiratsuyu and Ashigara. At that point it doesn't matter so much if you get uptiered, since you're still only going to get T9 at most, which is a bit different from T10, even if it's just one tier. But mostly you'll get T7 and T8 games. Lower tiers are also fun, but WG doesn't reward those, so it feels a bit like just playing for fun without accomplishments. You don't get much income, and most of the quests (mainly campaigns or whatever they're called) I'm focusing on are T8 and above. TLDR, I find most tiers fun to play at, but I play mostly high tiers since then you also get rewards and progression. This is kind of why I stopped playing Umikaze: When WG disallowed more than 1 tier spread in divisions, I couldn't get into T5 matches anymore. Those are far more fun than T2-T3 matches.

And the latter was only implied. As for the former, well...

No. This is an awful idea. Troll players like that will more often than not end up in the losing team, so punishing the winning team is completely contrary to what you actually want. Everyone in the winning team should earn a star. After all, their team won. I mean, what do you think is more common, a team winning with one or two trolls who do nothing, or a team where all players try? I'm not sure about you (especially with all the bullcrap you've written), but I'm pretty sure it's the latter. You want to punish them. The players who try. Until the XP system completely accurately represents who plays for the team (it doesn't; it rewards selfish play ATM), winning and losing should be the only factors in whether you gain or lose a star. XP should be completely irrelevant to that, since it's not a fair measurement of contribution. These damage farmers are the guys you want to discourage. And the best way to discourage them is to make all players in the losing team to lose a star. After all, their team lost. They should not benefit from damage farming after the game has shifted enough to be functionally lost. I've thought about how much more awful ranked would be with this change. This is pure bullcrap. I've played a lot of games where I felt the last guy did well enough to earn a star. Far more often than I thought he should not win a star. Then again, I don't want to play the blame game like you do and blame everyone else for my failures.

If the answer is, "don't play the tiers that have a lot of radars", then it's a problem that needs solving. Those kinds of things are what drives players away from the game.

I really hope it won't be too much mopey sole-survivor Shigure, because that gets old real fast. Main reason I don't like her as much as I would otherwise.

I use John Doe pretty much exclusively on Missouri. Haven't played any BBs or CAs at all on the US lines. AR is still pretty much an auto pick on just about all ships that don't need LS. It's just so insanely good. Sure, a single good hit trumps many weak ones, but many good hits trump a single weak one by far. Waiting doesn't always give you better shots.